Republicans Cleverly Unveil Latest Hostage-Taking Plan


During the last debt ceiling debacle, House Speaker John Boehner came up with the idea of “dollar for dollar”: House Republicans would agree to increase the debt ceiling by a dollar for every dollar that President Obama agreed to cut spending. But for Round 2, coming later this year, Rep. Tom Price says this idea is out the window:

“Dollar for dollar is difficult,” Price said. “The discretionary spending itself is $1 trillion a year, and if you’re running a $1 trillion deficit annually, it’s tough to find the savings solely in discretionary spending to match the increase in debt limit.”

There are two reasons to laugh at this. The first is Price’s suggestion that it would be merely “difficult” to completely eliminate discretionary spending. That’s reality-based!

The second reason is that apparently Price doesn’t understand his own party’s previous position. “Dollar for dollar” always applied to the 10-year budget window, which means it really should have been called “a dollar for a dime.” Over the next 10 years, the discretionary budget amounts to more than $10 trillion, which means that a trillion-dollar increase in the debt limit would require only $100 billion per year in discretionary cuts.

In any case, I suppose it’s a good sign that Republicans have decided the discretionary budget has been squeezed about as much as it can be. Perhaps the sequester has had an effect on them after all. Still, I wonder what they’re thinking with their shiny new “menu-based” approach to hostage taking? Do they really think that Obama is going to happily choose one from Column A and two from Column B in order to get a debt ceiling increase out of Congress? He’d be mad to even hint that he’s willing to bargain on these terms. And he’d be madder still to hint that he’s willing to privatize Medicare in return for a debt ceiling increase, as Republicans seem to think he might.

The tea partiers have painted themselves into a corner. The economy is slowly recovering, and the deficit is falling, but they’ve promised ever more hostage taking anyway, and now they have to follow through. But their proposals combine arrogance and amateur-hour theatrics in a way that practically guarantees failure. They sound like a bunch of eight-year-olds who think they’ve come up with an oh-so-clever way to trap dad into raising their allowance or something. But Obama isn’t running for reelection anymore. All he has to do this time around is say no, and stick to it. If Republicans decide to flush the economy down the toilet in a fit of pique anyway, then maybe it really is platinum coin time.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest